Andhra Pradesh High Court held that supply of electricity by petitioner to Power Trading Corporation of India is not export supply of goods and hence refund is not admissible. However, directed to claim refund of ITC relating to supply of electricity directly to Bangladesh Power Development Board.
The issue concerned dismissal of a GST appeal solely on the ground of delay beyond the condonable period. The Court condoned the marginal delay and restored the appeal.
Gujarat High Court held that the small retail pouches of tobacco leaves sold by petitioner is covered under the category of chewing tobacco and hence classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 2403 9910.
Karnataka High Court held that flavoured milk should be classified under Tariff Heading 0402 of the Customs Tariff Act and hence be subjected to GST @5% [i.e. CGST 2.5% and SGST 2.5%]. Accordingly, the present writ is allowed.
The ruling highlights that immunity under DTDRS is general to penalty proceedings. Consequently, revising penalties merely because a different section might apply is impermissible.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/2023-Customs merely because the petitioner did not adopt the LoC route is impermissible in fiscal jurisprudence. Accordingly, benefit granted as petitioner satisfied clause (i) of condition no. 6 of said notification.
Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and held that refund on account of inverted tax structure is allowable relying on the final order of earlier tax period. Thus, order rejecting refund is quashed and set aside.
Madras High Court held that Settlement Commission doesn’t possess power to change the head of income and convert the undisclosed portion of income into income u/s. 699B. Further, Settlement application is bound to be rejected once Settlement Commission arrives at the conclusion that full and true disclosure is not done.
The Bombay High Court dismissed an income tax appeal where the disputed claim was below the monetary threshold, highlighting that low tax effect alone can justify disposal when no exception applies.
The issue was whether exemption under Section 11 could be denied solely due to wrong data punching. The court ruled that inadvertent human errors cannot defeat a lawful exemption
